Mr. McCAMY. I do. Sergeant KIRK. I do.
Chairman STOKES. Thank you, you may be seated. The Chair recognizes counsel, Mr. Genzman.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Mr. Chairman, I believe that I am going to be handling the questioning this afternoon.
Chairman STOKES. I am sorry. Mr. Goldsmith.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Thank you. Sergeant Kirk, would you state for what purpose the committee's photographic evidence panel was asked to examine the backyard photographs showing Lee Harvey Oswald and a rifle?
Sergeant KIRK. To make a determination whether the photographs were authentic or fakes.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. I would like to refer your attention to what has been marked as committee exhibit 178 which is the flow chart on the right.
I would like to ask you how many different backyard pictures showing Oswald with the rifle was the panel given to examine?
Sergeant KIRK. We examined the original 133-A and B and 133 negative which were examined by the Warren Commission. In addition, we examined four additional photographs that were recovered by investigators from this committee.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Would you step to that chart and point to the other photographs that were investigated by the panel? Mr. Chairman, I move for the admission of this item.
Chairman STOKES. Without objection it may be entered into the record.
[The information follows:]
Sergeant KIRK. These are the two photographs that were sent over to the Federal Bureau of Investigation by the Dallas Police Department as a result of the execution of a search warrant on the Paine residence. In addition, they also turned over to the FBI this photographic negative. These are the three elements that were examined by the Warren Commission.
In addition, the photographic panel also was asked to examine 133-A, De Mohrenschildt, which was recovered by the committee investigator from the deceased estate of Mr. De Mohrenschildt, and also requested to examine 133-C, Dees, which has been established to be from a deceased Dallas police officer, and also asked to be examined 133-A, Stovall, and 133-C, Stovall, which was turned over to the investigators by retired Officer Stovall who executed the search warrant at the Paine residence.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Are all the materials represented on that flow chart either original negatives or first generation prints?
Sergeant KIRK. The camera panel established that the 133-B negative is the original camera negative material and all the other photographs on this chart are first generation prints.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. To what extent, if any, did the panel base its analysis upon materials that were not original negatives or first generation prints?
Sergeant KIRK. The panel agreed to only investigate first generation prints and original negative material.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. What was the reason for the panel taking this approach?
Sergeant KIRK. When you move away from first generation material, you lose in tonal quality. You are likely to pick up artifacts in the copying material and lose detail in the highlights and lose detail in the shadows.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. What do you mean by tonal quality, sir?
Sergeant KIRK. Tonal quality is the full scale that the photographic film is able to give you in a photograph. If you copy a photograph, you will lose some of that scale.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Referring to that flow chart, can you explain why these pictures are not all the same size?
Sergeant KIRK. They were produced by different mechanical means.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Is there anything unusual about the differences in size?
Sergeant KIRK. No.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Thank you.
Would you resume your seat at this point. I would ask that Sergeant Kirk be given, to examine, the original negative to 133-B and Warren Commission exhibits 133-A and B.
Sergeant Kirk, would you please identify the items that have just been given to you?
Sergeant KIRK. These are from the National Archives. They are the original photographs that have been identified in the Warren Commission Report as 133-A and 133-B. This is the photographic negative from the Archives. It is identified as the negative that produced 133-B.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. To your knowledge are these materials available for anyone to examine?
Sergeant KIRK. It is my understanding that anyone who wants to walk into the Archives and has the proper identification can examine them, yes.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. I would ask at this time that what has been marked as JFK F-179 and F-182 be shown to the witness. Mr. Chairman, I move for the admission of F-182.
Mr. DODD [presiding]. Without objection it is so ordered. [The information follows:]
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Thank you.
Would you identify these two exhibits?
Sergeant KIRK. Yes, sir. They are true and accurate reproductions of the front and reverse side of Commission exhibits 133-A and B.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. You indicated earlier that the differences in size in these photographs as they are depicted in the flow chart is attributable to the manner in which they were produced.
In your opinion, would you tell us now how Warren Commission exhibits 133-A and B were produced?
Sergeant KIRK. Yes, sir. These were referred to in the panel as the drugstore prints. It was determined that they most likely were produced on a commercial printer, the type which we would find in processing houses that do printing for camera stores and drugstores and so forth. The masking on the front, even though it looks square, is a 32d of an inch off.
In the top lefthand corner you can see where the convertible mask and the automatic printer has come together. On the reverse side of the photographs in the lefthand corner there is a little graphite mark almost obscured by someone who has written their initial and data on it.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Mrs. Downey, would you take the pointer and refer to that mark?
Sergeant KIRK. That graphite mark is placed on the automatic printer. It is used as a signal for the automatic cutter. When the roll of paper is processed, the automatic cutter has an electric eye that picks up the signal and tells it to cut the roll of paper up into snapshots.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Examining these two prints, are you able to state whether these two prints have been cropped in any way?
Sergeant KIRK. Yes, sir, I can.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Have they been?
Sergeant KIRK. Yes, they have.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Would you state your opinion as to in what way these prints have been cropped and for what purpose?
Sergeant KIRK. Well, at that time of day or time of year or that year, people prefer white borders on their photographs. The cropping or masking is done in the printing process at the processing house to create a white border around the photograph.
So the mask is somewhat smaller than the actual image size of the negative. Thusly, the cropping takes place for aesthetic purposes only.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Now, yOU made reference to the negative in front of you. Is there any indication that that negative was improperly processed?
Sergeant KIRK. Yes, sir. The panel found that the negative had been abused in the process.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. It was not properly processed?
Sergeant KIRK. No, sir, it was not.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Would you indicate to what extent it had been abused?
Sergeant KIRK. Originally there were emulsion tears. Emulsion is the substance of the photograph that contains the light sensitive grains of silver there suspended in the gelatin base. When the negative is becoming processed, it becomes wet, very sensitive to touch, very soft. We have on this negative torn emulsion.
Also, there are probably some other artifacts that were entered onto the negative as it was processed, probably by hand or at least in something that was not designed to process film of this size.
Also, there are indications that the negative has not been washed properly as there are water spots on the negative surface itself.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Thank you, Sergeant Kirk.
Now, according to the record, are these materials before you all the materials that the Warren Commission evaluated when the authenticity of backyard pictures was examined?
Sergeant KIRK. Yes, it is.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. At this time I would ask that Sergeant Kirk be given JFK exhibits F-380 and F-390. For the record, those are the copies of 133-C, Dees and Stovall.
Sergeant KIRK. This is a first generation print of the photograph that was identified as 133-C which was recovered from Mrs. Geneva Dees who is the widow of the deceased Dallas police officer, Roscoe White.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. You are referring now to JFK F-380?
Sergeant KIRK. 380.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Would you now examine JFK F-390.
Sergeant KIRK. This is identified as JFK F-390. It is also a first generation print from 133-C. This was recovered by committee investigators on April 14, 1978 from the retired Dallas police officer, Richard Stovall.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. You say both of these first generation prints were obtained by the committee from either Dallas police officers or a member of a family of a former Dallas police officer? Sergeant KIRK. That is correct.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Would the witness now be shown what has been marked as JFK F-180.
Sergeant Kirk, would you identify that exhibit?
Sergeant KIRK. Yes, sir. It is an enlargement from 133-C, Stovall, identified as JFK-180.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Mr. Chairman, I move that JFK F-180, and JFK F-390 be admitted to the record.
Chairman STOKES. Without objection they are entered into the record.
[JFK exhibit F-180 was entered previously.]
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Sergeant Kirk, I would ask you to explain how these two 133-C prints were produced.
Sergeant KIRK. Through close analysis of the two photographs we were able to establish that they were first generation prints. The negative that produced these prints suffered the same abuse as 133-B negatives and that we have emulsion tears, artifacts on the film plane itself, rather than within the image. They are considerably sharp, sharper than the image itself.
Also, there are other artifacts within the photograph that the panel believes or suggests that they are first generation prints.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Have these prints been cropped?
Sergeant KIRK. Yes, sir.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Are you able to state in what way, for what purpose, these have been cropped?
Sergeant KIRK. The pictures are square and we have rectangular photographs. To make a full enlargement from a 2 1/4 negative, this should have been an 8 by 8 photograph. Since we have an 8 by 10, we did have cropping.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Are you able to state whether the white border, which is an indication that the photograph has been cropped, was intended to serve an esthetic purpose?
Sergeant KIRK. It looks as though the print was put into a conventional 8 by 10 print easel. Since the easel is smaller than an 8 by 10 image, it esthetically would create a white border.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. According to the record, was either one of these prints ever provided to the Warren Commission? Sergeant KIRK. No, they were not.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. What about the original negative, was that provided to the Warren Commission? Sergeant KIRK. No, it was not.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Has it been provided to this committee?
Sergeant KIRK. No, it has not.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Do you know where the negative is today, Sergeant Kirk?
Sergeant KIRK. No, sir, I do not.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Sergeant Kirk, it was your testimony that in your opinion these prints, which we have designated as 133-C, which were in the possession of former Dallas police department personnel, were made from the original negative?
Sergeant KIRK. Yes, sir.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. At this time I would ask that the witness be given JFK-183 and 184 to examine.
Sergeant Kirk, would you identify that item?
Sergeant KIRK. It is not identified by number but it is the original photograph identified as 133-A, De Mohrenschildt.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. I would ask that Sergeant Kirk be given a chance to see what has been marked as JFK F-382 and F-383. Would you identify these two items?
Sergeant KIRK. Yes, sir; they are a true and accurate representation of the original photograph which is identified as 133-A, De Mohrenschildt.
On the left is the front or image side and on the right is the reverse side of that photograph.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. In your opinion, Sergeant Kirk, how was that print produced?
Sergeant KIRK. This photograph is a contradiction. It is a contradiction in the fact that a good quality enlarger with good optics was used. The person who printed the photograph knew what they were doing when they exposed the paper, and made the enlargement.
The contradiction comes in because it has turned yellow. On the reverse side almost in the center of the photograph is a big blob that you see here, but on the original are yellow stains. This is indicative that probably the photograph was exposed or enlarged from the negative by someone who knew what they were doing.
But yet the person who was given the task of washing the print either didn't follow instructions or was never instructed on how to wash the print properly because the type of paper that was used back in those days had fibers in it and the chemistry and water minerals adhered to the fibers and it required an excessive long time of washing. If it was not washed properly, once it dried it had a tendency for the chemical residue that was left in the paper to turn yellow.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Has this print been cropped in anyway?
Sergeant KIRK. No, sir; it was not.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. How are you able to make that determination?
Sergeant KIRK. I will have to walk over to the easel.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Please do.
Sergeant KIRK. This committee heard testimony earlier today saying that this was probably a full negative print as indicated by the black border. The panel agrees with that testimony. Normal printing will give you the esthetic white border that you would have in normal enlarging.
A common negative carrier used for this type of printing would be used to hold the negative. This would do some of the cropping that we talked about.
Now if the photo laboratory that was handling this negative or the person who was using the photo laboratory to make a print did not normally use this size negative, they would have to seek out a negative carrier that would allow the negative to lay flat. This is the type of negative carrier that you would find in a graphics arts shop or printing shop that had to do with a lot of line negatives.
Since it is glass, it would allow you to lay a negative or a strip of negatives into the negative carrier to hold it fiat which would
allow you, but would cause you, unless you cropped it by moving a mask around the paper. Again, this would probably indicate that the photo laboratory it was processed in did not have a paper easel small enough.
So when the photograph was printed, you had the complete negative area plus a black border that was created by the unexposed part of the negative.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Is this an unusual way of producing a print?
Sergeant KIRK. It is not unusual when you are limited in equipment. This technique is used to do down and dirty prints where you want the picture editors to be able to see the full image area so they can determine what final cropping is going to be used. It is unusual; you would not find this technique in a commercial printing house, no, sir.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Is the absence of cropping in and of itself unusual?
Sergeant KIRK. Yes.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Why is that?
Sergeant KIRK. Because normally people like to have white borders as I said for esthetic purposes. Unless they were forced to use a larger negative carrier because they did not have another one, then you would have this, or if for some reason they wanted to be able to see the full image area, they would use a larger negative carrier.
Chairman STOKES. Counsel, will you identify for the record the exhibit the witness is testifying about?
Mr. GOLDSMITH. The witness was given F-183 and F-184 which was the original De Mohrenschildt print and he is now referring to an enlargement of it as well which is JFK F-382 and F-383.
Chairman STOKES. Thank you.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Sergeant Kirk, if you will remain standing, we will give you the next exhibit to examine. Could Sergeant Kirk be given JFK F-398, and could an enlargement of it, marked JFK F-185, be displayed?
Sergeant, would you examine that item and identify it?
Sergeant KIRK. Yes, sir. This item marked as JFK F-185 is a photograph recovered from retired police officer Richard F. Stovall. It was recovered on April 14, 1978, by committee investigators. It is identified on the flow chart as 133-A, Stovall.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. This is the second Stovall photograph; is that correct?
Sergeant KIRK. That is right.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Mr. Chairman, I move for the admission of these exhibits.
Chairman STOKES. Without objection they may be entered into the record at this point.
[The information follows:]
Mr. GOLDSMITH. I would ask that Sergeant Kirk be given an opportunity to examine JFK F-185.
Sergeant, would you identify that exhibit?
Sergeant KIRK. Yes, sir. That is a photographic enlargement. It is an actual and accurate copy of 133-A, Stovall.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Would you explain how the Stovall print was produced?
Sergeant KIRK. Yes, sir. This has some unusual artifacts on it as well to tell you it was made other than as a normal photograph would be. I would draw your attention to the black circle and the black border that exists on the bottom of the photograph. This is
indicative of someone taking a sheet of 8 by 10 enlarging paper and cutting it in half into two 5- by 8-inch pieces of paper.
We have established it was placed into a convertible easel known as a three-way easel. This is an air-quipt four-way, one which was in production and in use extensively in the country during 1963. The circle was caused by a popper which holds the bumper onto this easel, so that when it is used on the other side, these bumpers serve as feet and it is clear where light is allowed to pass through.
When the individual who wanted to make some 5 by 7's and didn't have 5 by 7 paper, he or she took 8 by 10 paper and cut it in half and probably was in a hurry because they did not bother to cut off the bottom part of the paper because what happened was that part of the paper was sticking out from the bottom of the easel. This is exposed by the negative, by the overspill from the enlarger.
So that the image area of the enlarging easel received the photograph and there was still light hitting the entire part of the easel so some of the light went down into the hole that holds the foot onto this easel creating the circle and the overspill created the black border across the bottom.
I inserted this at the beginning of today's hearings and left it under these photographic lights. As you can see, you can see the border on the bottom of the print and if you look closely, there is the circle that was created by the light striking the paper today.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Sergeant Kirk, was that print produced from the original negative?
Sergeant KIRK. Yes, sir; it was.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. In other words, it is a first generation print? Sergeant KIRK. Yes, sir; it is.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. How can you tell that?
Sergeant KIRK. We find the same information in it we found from the other first generation prints. The negative shows the same type of abuse, emulsion tears in it. They are sharp and well defined and so are the scratches sharp and well defined.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Is this print cropped?
Sergeant KIRK. Yes, sir.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Can you explain in what way it has been cropped?
Sergeant KIRK. We are still dealing with a square negative and we got a rectangular image so we had to have cropping somewhere.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Can you tell the purpose for which it was cropped?
Sergeant KIRK. I suppose somebody wanted some 5 by 7's as opposed to two 5 by 5's or 7 by 7's.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. You testified this print was made from the original negative. Was that negative also used to produce the De Mohrenschildt print?
Sergeant. KIRK. Yes, it was.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Was that negative ever provided to the Warren Commission?
Sergeant KIRK. No, sir; it was not.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Has it been made available to the committee?
Sergeant KIRK. No, sir; it has not.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Do you know where it is today?
Sergeant KIRK. No, sir; I do not.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Let me rephrase that. Your testimony then is that the print which was given to the committee by a former Dallas police officer was derived from an original negative?
Sergeant KIRK. Yes, sir; it was.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Sergeant, have you summarized at this time the materials that were reviewed by the committee's photography panel?
Sergeant KIRK. We examined all the photographs that are depicted here on this flow chart and it is the opinion of the panel that these are all first generation photographs.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. And of the three first generation photographs that you examined, there were three negatives. Of those three original negatives, only one has been made available to the Warren Commission and to this committee; is that correct?
Sergeant KIRK. That is correct, sir.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. And the other two negatives were at some time, it appears, in the possession of Dallas Police Department personnel?
Sergeant KIRK. That could be a fair assumption, yes, sir.
Mr. GOLDSMITH, Sergeant, have any other first generation prints been discovered?
Sergeant KIRK. Yes, sir.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. What print are you referring to now?
Sergeant KIRK. It is identified in the Warren Commission report as Commission exhibit 134.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. I would ask that Sergeant Kirk be handed Warren Commission exhibit 134 which corresponds with JFK F-398. Would you identify that?
Sergeant KIRK. Yes, sir. This is a photograph that is presently in the custody of the National Archives. It was reproduced in the Warren Commission report and identified as Commission exhibit 134.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Mr. Chairman, I move for the admission of this item.
Chairman STOKES. Without objection it may be entered into the record.
[See exhibit F-185.]
Mr. GOLDSMITH. I will also note for the record that Warren Commission exhibits 133-A and B as well as the negative will be introduced into the record at this time. To my knowledge they have not been assigned exhibit numbers, or at least I will ask you to admit them into the record.
[Warren Commission exhibits 133-A and B are on file on permanent possession at the National Archives.]
Sergeant Kirk, how was this particular print discovered? Sergeant KIRK. This past weekend I was reading over some of the Warren Commission reports. I detected a sentence in there that as a police officer investigator did not correspond with what I thought would be proper investigative techniques.
In the report it quoted Captain Fritz as saying he showed Lee Harvey Oswald one enlargement and one small photograph. When I looked at the 134 as it was identified in the Warren Commission report I could see that it was an enlargement of 133-A. I thought
at first this might be a reason why Mr. Oswald said that is a fake picture, because as you copy photographs, it gives the illusion that they have been tampered with.
I thought, why would someone go to the trouble of copying a photograph if they had the original evidence to approach a suspect with. I thought this kind of strange. So I asked the committee if I could go over to the Archives on Monday and look at Commission exhibit 134.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. What' did you discover when you examined that exhibit?
Sergeant KINK. I looked at the photograph and formed an opinion. As has been the policy of the panel, we seek another opinion from another member of the panel and I withheld my conclusion until Mr. McCamy could go over them Tuesday and examine the photograph. After he did that, we both reached the same conclusion, that 134 is a first generation print.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. By first generation print you mean it came from the original negative?
Sergeant KIRK. It came from the original negative, yes, sir.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. In your opinion, how was this print produced?
Sergeant KIRK. The photographic paper was placed in an 8 x 10 easel and the print was produced and it creates the aesthetic-like border that you see here. So, there is some cropping.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Sergeant, what notation, if any, appears on the back of this print?
Sergeant KINK. There is an impression from a rubber stamp that identifies this as a Dallas Police Department photograph. It is dated 11-23-63.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. That print comes from the same original negative as De Mohrenschildt 133-A and 133-A, Stovall.
Sergeant KIRK. Yes, it does.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Sergeant, if that print is a first generation print, which means it came from the original negative, are you able to state whether that original negative was ever in the possession of the Dallas Police Department personnel?
Sergeant KIRK. This photograph is stamped Dallas Police Department photograph and it is identified as the photograph that Captain Fritz showed to Lee Harvey Oswald.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Does this photograph come from one of the negatives that has not been made available to the Warren Commission and to this committee?
Sergeant KIRK. Yes, sir, it does.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. After reviewing these materials, what was the next step in the panel's analysis of the backyard pictures?
Sergeant KIRK. The panel thought it best then to examine the camera that is purported to have been used to take the backyard photographs.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. At this point I would ask that Sergeant Kirk be given what has been marked as JFK F-381, it is a Warren Commission exhibit as well. I will ask him to identify it.
Before I do, Sergeant, would you prefer to remain standing or be seated?
Sergeant KIRK. Whatever is more convenient to the committee. I can work either way.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Why don't you stand for now and let me know if you would like to sit down.
Why was it necessary for you to examine the camera?
Sergeant KIRK. First of all, Marina Oswald testified that she took the photographs with this camera. Second, it was important to the panel, if we could establish that this camera was used to take the photographs, it would establish the parameters as far as equipment-wise on how the photographs had to be taken, whether or not they were authentic or fake.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. When you were examining the camera, what was the specific purpose of examining it in terms of the materials that you were working with? In other words, did you want to see whether those materials had been originally exposed in the Oswald camera?
Sergeant KIRK. Yes, we had one negative and we also had the De Mohrenschildt which was a full frame negative print. We distinguished certain identifiers or the signature of the camera was found on the negative.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Mr. Chairman, I move for the admission of JFK F-381.
Chairman STOKES. Without objection it may be entered into the record.
[JFK exhibit F-381 was entered previously.]
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Sergeant, was this the subject of your analysis? Sergeant KIRK. Yes, sir, it is.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. How did the panel attempt to establish whether the negatives to the backyard pictures had originally been exposed in Oswald's Imperial Reflex camera?
Sergeant KIRK. There were two tests conducted, one by scientists at the Rochester Institute of Technology and an independent examination conducted by myself here at the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Police Photographic Laboratory.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. What characteristics were you looking for?
Sergeant KIRK. We wanted to see if this photograph produced the identifiers or the signature that was detected on negatives 133-B and 133-A, De Mohrenschildt.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. You made reference to identifiers or signature. What do you mean when you use those terms?
Sergeant KIRK. Most cameras, particularly inexpensive cameras that have been manufactured by molded plastic, have certain imperfections in them. A lot of imperfections are found around the film plane aperture, as some call it, the part of the camera the film lays against to be exposed.
Now people who manufacture these types of cameras do not worry too much about the frame-edge markings because they know the type of person who would buy this camera would send the film to the corner drugstore and they know the frame is going to be cropped off anyway to create the white borders I referred to earlier.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. So are frame-edge markings one of the identifiers to which you referred?
Sergeant KIRK. We wanted to find out and we asked the Rochester Institute of Technology to obtain two replica cameras like this. They obtained two cameras from the International Museum of
Photography located at Eastman House in Rochester, New York and conducted tests with those cameras for us.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. My specific question was: What do you call these identifiers, these terms that you referred to as being the equivalent of a signature? One I take is frame edge marks.
Sergeant KINK. That is correct, and scratches that were introduced into the image area itself by the fact that the film was dragging across its plastic.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Those would be camera scratch marks?
Sergeant KIRK. Yes.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. I would ask that you refer now to what has been marked for identification as JFK F-187. I move for the admission of this item, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman STOKES. Without objection it will be entered into the record.
[The information follows:]
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Mr. Chairman, may I have a moment? Sergeant, would you identify this exhibit?
Sergeant KIRK. Yes, sir. It is a photograph of the film plane of the Imperial Reflex camera identified as Commission Exhibit 750. To orientate you, this is the supply well where the fresh film is inserted. The film is drug across this plane to a take-up reel at the top of the camera.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Are you able to explain from that exhibit how camera scratch marks frame edge marks are caused?
Sergeant KIRK. More expensive cameras would have a stainless steel roller to keep the film from actually dragging across the surface. Since that does not have a case, the film is forced to be drug across this film plane which would produce scratches. Also, you can see here, these are the points where the plastic mold was attached and when the mold was removed, it will bring certain fragments of the plastic away from it that will spill out of the mold. It makes an imperfect edge around the image area of the camera.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. At this time I would ask that Sergeant Kirk be shown what has been marked for identification as JFK F-190.
Sergeant Kirk, I would ask that you identify this exhibit and explain how the frame edge marks and camera scratch marks for Oswald's camera were established?
Sergeant KIRK. Yes, sir. This is a test exposure that we made off the roof of police headquarters on August 1 of this year.
To orientate you, this is the new Labor Department Building and, of course, the Capitol Building is in the background.
We found after developing the negative and intentionally underexposing it so that we could see the frame edges, because this camera tends to put more exposure on the center of the negatives than around the edges, we found the signature or identifiers around the frame edge markings and two distinctive scratches, that regardless of how many times we ran film through the camera, all showed up in exactly the same location.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Mr. Chairman, I move for the admission of JFK F-190.
Chairman STOKES. Without objection it may be entered into the record at this point.
[The information follows:]
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Sergeant Kirk, why are frame edge marks and camera scratch marks useful in determining why a particular camera was used to take a particular picture?
Sergeant KIRK. Well, throughout the years it has been pretty common knowledge in the forensic sciences that cameras do leave their signatures, especially in inexpensive brands. Years ago during World War II when they were trying to identify what footage was shot by what cameras, laboratory technicians actually etched markings into the frame so they could identify one camera from another.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. What effort, if any, was made to verify whether the frame edge marks and camera scratch marks produced by Oswald's camera were really unique?
Sergeant KIRK. As I said, RIT scientists obtained two duplicate cameras from the International Museum of Photography located at the Eastman House in Rochester and exposed some test negatives.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. I would ask Sergeant Kirk be shown JFK F-191. Would you explain now, Sergeant Kirk, what type of comparison was made?
Sergeant KIRK. Yes, sir. This is exemplary of the types of negatives obtained from the two test cameras. One of the things that are obvious here, that you have identifiers at approximately the same location as the Oswald camera. That is because you have these three corks here for the plastic to go into the mold, but they are unique and different from this in the other camera. Indeed you will see more in the other camera because this camera had not been used much before it was placed in the museum. As film drags across this camera, it wore off some of the small pieces of plastic that were sticking out.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Why does this exhibit not have numbers whereas the one to the right does have numbers?
Sergeant KIRK. I didn't want to confuse the committee by thinking that I was trying to tell them that point one in this chart was identical to point one on that chart because they are nowhere near similar. They are totally different and unique.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Mr. Chairman, I move for the admission of JFK F-191.
Mr. FITHIAN [presiding]. Without objection it is so ordered. [The information follows:] 41-371 0 - 79 - 24 Vol. 2
Mr. GOLDSMITH. At this time I would ask Sergeant Kirk be shown JFK F-188 and F-397. Would you identify these two exhibits?
Sergeant KIRK. Yes, sir. The enlargement on the top is a print made from the 133-B negative, the only negative that we had to work from. The photograph on the bottom is made from a copy photograph and enlarged from 133-A, DeMohrenschildt.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Mr. Chairman, I move for the admission of these items.
Mr. FITHIAN. Without objection they may be entered into the record at this point.
[The information follows:]
JFK EXHIBIT F-188
JFK EXHIBIT F-397
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Would you explain in some detail what analysis you did with these two exhibits?
Sergeant KIRK. Yes, sir. We intentionally took the 133-B negative and withheld the exposure around the edge markings. As I said earlier, the camera tends to expose more in the center than around the edges. We wanted to be able to see if we could pick up the same identifiers or the camera signature in the 133-B negative as was in our test negative exposed this year.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. What was the result?
Sergeant KIRK. The identifiers are there, all of them, and in my opinion the same camera that produced the test photograph this year produced the 133-B backyard photograph.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Of the backyard picture showing Oswald with the rifle, were only the DeMohrenschildt print and the 133-B negative studied for frame edge markings?
Sergeant KIRK. That is correct, sir.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Why is that?
Sergeant KIRK. Because those were the only material we had to show the frame edge markings.
Mr. GoLDsMITH. Does the DeMohrenschildt print have fewer identifying frame marks on it than the 133-B negative?
Sergeant KIRK. It does if you look at it with this type of lighting under which it was photographed for the exhibit today. Items 2, 6, 7, 10 and 11 are visible if you look at the photograph under reflected light.
However, if you place the original print on a light box and look at it from light projected through the print, if you look at it using a
small power magnifier you would be able to pick up the other identifiers that I put in here with dashes.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. I understand the photography panel was able to study only the DeMohrenschildt print and the 133-B for edge
marks.' What materials were studied for the scratch mark analysis?
Sergeant KIRK. All of the prints.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Why is that?
Sergeant KIRK. Because the scratches we were looking for were in the part of the photograph that would not be cropped out in any of these areas. We found the same scratch marks precisely the same distance apart in the same location in all the first generation prints.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. I am sorry. I missed the last part of your answer. Would you state the results of your scratch mark analysis?
Sergeant KIRK. We found the same scratch marks in the image area such as identifiers 10 and 11 in all the first generation prints on this flow chart.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Sergeant, have you investigated the allegation that the Oswald Imperial Reflex camera was used only to take the backyard pictures of Oswald with the rifle?
Sergeant KIRK. Yes, sir, I have.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. When did you do that?
Sergeant KIRK. August 1 of this year.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Exactly how did you go about examining this issue, Sergeant?
Sergeant KIRK. I went to the National Archives and requested to see all of the photographs and all of the photographic negatives that were turned over to the Warren Commission and listed as that material that was taken during the execution of search warrants from the personal effects of Lee and Marina Oswald.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. What did these photographs portray, Sergeant? Sergeant KIRK. Most were family-type snapshots, scenes, an older
child and a baby in a crib. They depicted Mrs. Oswald and a child playing with a hose pipe, spraying water on each other. It depicted Mr. Oswald holding an infant in his arms, family type photographs.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. I would ask that Sergeant Kirk be shown JFK F-189. Sergeant, would you identify that exhibit?
Sergeant KIRK. Yes, sir. It is a first generation print made from a negative obtained from the Archives. It is from one of approximately two dozen negatives that were on file at the Archives. It is a photograph of a young child. The child has been identified by Marina Oswald Porter as being one of the children of she and Lee Harvey Oswald.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Mr. Chairman, I move for the admission of this exhibit.
Mr. FITHIAN. Without objection it may be entered into the record at this point.
[The information follows:]
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Was this exhibit compared with any other materials or photographs exposed in Oswald's camera?
Sergeant KIRK. Yes, sir, it was.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. What was the result of that comparison?
Sergeant KIRK. The comparison was made with the test negative, the 133-B backyard photograph, the 133-A DeMohrenschildt photograph, and they were found to contain the identical identifiers and scratch marks.
It is our opinion that the same camera produced the baby picture.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. What were the panel's overall conclusions regarding the frame edge marks and camera scratch marks that it evaluated?
Sergeant KIRK. That it is a reliable source of identification and it is our opinion that the camera did indeed produce these photographs.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. When you say these photographs, you are referring to the backyard pictures?
Sergeant KIRK. The backyard pictures and the baby picture.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Thank you.
Sergeant Kirk, please resume your seat.
I might state, Mr. Chairman, that the agenda for today has been changed somewhat. We have a witness here to give testimony on the issue of handwriting analysis. For that reason I have been asked to request of Sergeant Kirk and Mr. McCamy that we defer the remainder of their testimony until tomorrow so that the handwriting expert can testify today. He informs us that he has to appear in court tomorrow and would not be available to be here tomorrow.
Sergeant Kirk, Mr. McCamy, would you be available tomorrow?
Sergeant KIRK. Yes, sir.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Mr. Chairman, I would also like to request that JFK F-188 and F-397 be admitted into the record.
Mr. FITHIAN. Without objection it is so ordered.
[The exhibits referred to were previously admitted into the record.]
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Thank you.
